Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Rapa Nui features to the largest marine protected coastal area and Latin America, with 72 million hectares
Evidence B:Rapa Nui surrounding ocean is a KBA and it has a high level of RSR.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:No data is provided on the irrecoverable carbon data but since the project concerns the ocean, assumption is that that value is high also??
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Although pascuenses organizations have obtained unique advances in Chile in territorial autonomy and self-government, remain state forms of control over the population and its decisions
Evidence B:Rapa Nui has IPLC governance authorities and councils but the main authority is the Government of Chile. The proposal doesn’t explain how these different organisations and levels of IP governance are articulated with the national Chilean government but it appears to be a mix with IPs responsible for the Consejo del Mar and also the Ma’u Henua which manages the National Park which makes up 46% of Rapa Nui’s land area.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Biological and cultural importance of Rapa Nui is notorious and well described in the proposal
Evidence B:The EOI emphasises food sovereignty and the fishing needs of the IPs but doesn’t refer to traditional relationships with the ocean and the links between cultural heritage and the ocean. Nor does the centre that is the focus of EoI talk about how culture will be integrated into its design and purpose.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Being an island, mass tourism, migration of its native population to the continent, and global warming are permanent and growing threats that require specific actions
Evidence B:The ocean area around Rapa Nui is threatened by a range of factors that are listed including pollution, illegal industrial fishing, and climate change.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Rapa Nui has a status of “special territory” within the current Chilean law, but its status administration and government is still pending.
Evidence B:The EoI doesn’t not make this aspect clear (in addition, I cannot open the tabular resources without losing this page as the link won’t allow me to open it in another tab so I cannot verify that!)
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Support for Isla focuses on heritage conservation areas rather than biological
Evidence B:It appears, due to the number of IP led organisations and council that support is there but this is not clearly articulated in the EoI.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The recent creation in 2018 of the Marine and Coastal Protected Area Multipurpose (MUMPAs) of Rapa Nui, which added to the marine park Motu Motiro Hiva, totaling 72 million hectares, are actions that make the marine area around Rapa Nui in the largest protected area conservation throughout Latin America.
Evidence B:Based on Ma’u Henua’s management of the Parque Nacional, the role of ONG Toki, Te Mau and the Consejo del Mar it would appear that conservation initiatives have been led by IPs and can be scaled up. However it is unclear how the proposed centre itself will do this and what the involvement of IPs will be in the centre itself besides co-management
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: No large-scale projects can be seen in conservation
Evidence B:The main current partner is Pew that has designed the centre. And the project appears to have the support of the Local Council which brings together the IP composed Consejo del Mar and Chilean Ministries.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposal consists of the material construction of a marine research center for the development of research in the marine ecosystem and its resources around Rapa Nui, but you can not see a clear connection with the conservation objectives
Evidence B:The centre will also provide an office for the Consejo del Mar (fully IP led) and assist in the stewardship of the ocean.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: No more developed activities that the construction of the building that would house the marine research center
Evidence B:The hoped for results are increased food sovereignty (through better management of ocean resources) but the EoI lacks details on how this would happen.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: It is worrying that the existence of this center can help increase the flow of tourists to the wild island
Evidence B:hard to score because the EoI doesn’t spell out how the proposed centre will directly contribute to overcoming threats but it will facilitate the Consejo del Mar’s work.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Yes, if just about building a building
Evidence B:Cannot tell from the EoI.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: cofinancing of USD 1 million already committed by Pew Bertarelli arises Ocean Legacy
Evidence B:Hard to say as no figures are provided - there are partners but no indication of co-financing in the responses to questions 6 and 7.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposal would cover over all of the marine protected area
Evidence B:70,000 hectares is the area provided.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Eventually actions of the research center could help strengthen the proposed cultural indicators
Evidence B:there are indicators but they are not measurable and no details are given. Again, difficult to score…
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The sustainability of the project lies in very limited probability according to the description provided
Evidence B:The centre will likely be self-sufficient in the future through national government assistance and paying customers.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: There is no evidence enough in the proposal on this issue
Evidence B:More detail needs to be provided on how the centre would contribute to NBSAP even though it is aligned with NBSAP objectives
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: an approach and in-depth analysis is not seen in the proposal regarding the gender issue
Evidence B:EoI doesn’t mention much other than that the centre would benefit both men and women.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The construction of a building (still a research cdentro) on an island as Rapa Nui is a sparsely innovative and extremely complex idea as to assess the actual effects on biodiversity conservation
Evidence B:The EoI doesn’t give enough detail.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The organization submitting the EOI is a grassroots organization Rapa Nui, as to the partner organizations to the project.
Evidence B:it’s hard to score - as the initiative is led by an IPLC organisation and will support other IPLC organisations but it will also rely on Chilean authorities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: There is insufficient evidence
Evidence B:The members of the organisation have been committed to ocean conservation as per their answer to question 20 but many have been mainly volunteers.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The main IPLC partner is the Consejo del Mar which is listed as playing a role in management. The other local organisations contain a mix of IP and non-IP representatives.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:it’s hard to judge from the EoI.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Projects and funding amounts managed by the organization proposing are not sufficient to demonstrate the necessary capacity
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: No evidence in this regard
Evidence B:NA